CPR3701

63511908
Lerato Machaba

Section 1
1.1The part of the facts that constitutes substantive law is the alleged crimes of
robbery with aggravating circumstances by Ed Crooke and his accomplices in the
Republic of Camunda in 1988.

1.2The part of the scenario dealing with procedural/adjectival law is the arrest of Ed
Crooke by the South African police in 2010.

1.3The charge of robbery with aggravating circumstances cannot be tried in a

1.4In terms of section 18 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, the right to
prosecute lapses after 20 years from the time the offence was committed. Since
the offence occurred in 1988 and Ed was arrested in 2010, the 20-year period
has lapsed. Therefore, Ed and his accomplices cannot be prosecuted for the
offence.

1.5After Ed and his accomplices have pleaded not guilty, the State may withdraw
the case with the court's consent. The prosecution would need to have
convincing reasons to do so, such as insufficient evidence.

1.6A police officer will be deemed to have reasonable grounds to effect an arrest if:

- There is credible information or evidence showing that the suspect has

Section 2

2.1 The use of deadly force is necessary only if the suspect poses an immediate
threat of serious bodily harm to the officers or the public. Ed Crooke, at 72 years
old, was attempting to flee from arrest. There is nothing to show that Ed posed an
immediate threat of serious bodily harm to the officers or the public during the
escape. Captain Trigga Happi’s decision to shoot Ed does not comply with the strict
requirements of section 49(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The use of force must
be proportionate to the threat posed, and in this scenario, Ed did not pose
immediate danger to anyone.
2.2 Ed has the right to silence, meaning he cannot be forced to answer any
questions. If Ed was not informed of this right, any evidence obtained through
interrogation might be deemed inadmissible in court.
If Ed cannot afford a lawyer, he has the right to a state-appointed legal
representative.
Truth Seeker must inform Ed of his rights, including the right to remain silent and
the right to a legal representative.

2.3 The requirement of 48 hours can have exceptions, particularly if the delay can
be justified by circumstances. In Ed's case, the circumstance is his injury sustained
during the arrest.
If the medical condition of a detainee makes it impossible for them to be present in
court within 48 hours, this delay can be deemed lawful. The authorities must,
however, ensure that the detainee is brought before a court as soon as their
medical condition improves.
In Ed's case, his delayed court appearance due to a medical emergency could be
seen as a reasonable and justifiable limitation of his rights under the specific
circumstances.

Section 3

3.1
3.1.1 the court must be convinced that it is more likely than not that the accused
will appear for trial and will not pose danger to the community if released on bail.
3.1.2 For Schedule 6 offences, the onus is on the accused to prove that exceptional
circumstances exist which justify their release on bail.

3.2
3.2.1 The charge sheet states that the robbery took place in Pretoria, which is
incorrect as the crime was committed in Zamunda. This mistake can potentially
invalidate the charge sheet, as it does not comply with the requirement for
sufficient detail under Section 84(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 and
Section 35(3)(1)(a) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996.
If the charge sheet is corrected to the correct location, and if there is no other basis
for South African jurisdiction such as an applicable extradition treaty granting
jurisdiction over crimes committed abroad by foreigners, the court will not have
jurisdiction.
3.2.2 Section 84(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 requires that a charge
sheet contains sufficient detail to inform the accused of the nature of the charge.
Due to the incorrect location, the charge sheet fails to meet the requirement of
providing sufficient detail under Section 84(1). The mistake in stating the wrong
location results in a lack of sufficient detail necessary for the accused to prepare
proper defense.

3.3 The efficacy of the accused's strategy of not testifying or presenting a defense
depends largely on the strength of the prosecution's case. If the prosecution's case
is indeed weak and lacks evidence, the strategy can work in the accused’s favor.
The strategy of not presenting a defense and relying on the State's weak case can
be risky. While the burden of proof is on the State to prove guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt, if the prosecution has presented a prima facie case, the court
might conclude that the accused is guilt from the lack of a defense.

Section 4
4.1
4.1.1 Competent verdicts allow a court to convict an accused of a lesser offense if
the evidence does not fully support the original charge but does substantiate a
related, lesser charge. This ensures justice is served even if the primary charge is
not entirely proven.
4.1.2 In the case of robbery, competent verdicts might include:
Theft.
Attempted robbery.
Assault with intent to rob.
4.2 When sentencing Ed, the court will consider mitigating factors such as his age
(72 years) and health. However, his previous convictions for theft are aggravating
factors that indicate a pattern of criminal behavior. The court must balance these
factors to determine an appropriate sentence, considering both the need for
punishment and any compassionate considerations due to his age and health.